Posted on

Consider the consequences

Scroll down to see more content

Published by

Pied Type

Susan Richards is a retired editor living in Thornton, Colo., near the family and mountains she loves. Her long-standing Pied Type blog contains some 3,800 posts dating back to 2002.

Categories Politics19 Comments

19 thoughts on “Consider the consequences”

  1. Of course, this is an exaggeration. But is “packing” the Supreme Court such a bad thing? I’m still undecided about this. But if I had to go up in front of the court, I would prefer more opinions – especially if more than half leans a specific way. Personally, I think a few more opinions would provide a more fair judgment.

    Reply

    1. I’m still undecided too. It’s really a terrible precedent. but if the conservative judges go nuts and start overturning Roe v Wade and same-sex marriage, etc., I might reconsider. I think lifetime appointments are ridiculous.

      Reply

        1. I don’t know about removal. How do you decide a judge needs to be removed? It would end up being another very political decision — although I’ve already wished there were some way to remove Barrett.

  2. Ever tried to work a project with a committee? UGH!
    The time wasted. The headaches. The drama and drama queens and kings seeking attention.NOTHING gets done in a timely fashion.
    Even RBG said it was a bad idea – along with many much smarter than I.
    Right now we have balance-ish of power with Congress, President and Supreme Court ( who is only designed to rule on is the matter/law legal in the perimeters of the Constitution. It is not supposed to make law or legislate from the bench. Only judge legality of matter.)
    More appointments would create potential for political decisions and ruling. ..and a lot of wasted time with candidate hearings
    You have to trust at some point. I will trust that those elected for life to the Supreme Court will put aside personal bias/belief and rule strictly legality – for the good of the democratic republic that the US is and for it to continue.

    Reply

    1. Yes John Roberts turned out to be a pretty honest thoughtful man who puts country before politics, so maybe we can count on the rest of them to do the same. But I’m still opposed to their lifetime appointments. Let them have 20 years, maybe even 30, and then get somebody else in there.

      Reply

      1. One can hope.
        The whole candidate process has deteriorated into sound bytes, and street drama.
        Yep. 30 years tops…along with 2 terms in office for Congress members (And you can’t run for president if your dad/mom/sibling/uncle/aunt/cousin/ any grandparent was president. …maybe not a bad idea for Congress seats either? )
        Elected office was never intended to be a lifelong career..or a way to get rich.

        Reply

        2. I always did find it interesting how many politicians or folks running for president had “Jr.” or “third” after their names. Politics needs to stop being a family business. It wouldn’t be so bad if they were truly public servants, but I think it’d have to skip a generation, otherwise there’s this lovely little echo chamber bubble these baby politicos start spouting from instead of being out there themselves and seeing what they can do.

          I’m good with 20 years on the supreme court. The day you take the oath, the clock starts. If you die, another comes to take your place, their clock starts. And when you’re out, you’re out, so no quitting and coming back to restart the clock. Dunno about term limits in the Senate. Maybe four terms max. 24 years means they get to go somewhere else and maybe learn something about the country they helped/tried to screw over when they’re done…if they make it that long. A 40 or 50 year career in elected office is too damn long… might make ’em think they’re entitled to the job or something.

        3. I think they already think they’re entitled — to a lifetime in office. We were never intended to have professional politicians; it was supposed to be citizens who served for a short time and then went back to their day jobs.

  3. You know what? I’m OK with a bit of packing (an unfortunate term, IMHO). Even though the conservatives are clutching their pearls at the thought, they would do it in a hot second if the situation was reversed. If the SCOTUS appointments weren’t for life, I would probably feel differently. Too many of the current judges have been appointed by conservative presidents (who didn’t win the popular vote) and approved by a conservative senate (who also don’t represent the majority of the electorate). As far as I’m concerned, court packing happened when Obama wasn’t allowed to have his nominee even considered because “it was an election year” yet they are fast tracking their nominee despite an upcoming… wait for it… election.

    Reply

    1. You make a good point about the situation being reversed. I think the current batch of Republicans in DC wouldn’t hesitate to do it, as evidenced by the Amy Coney Barrett nomination. Even if Dems take over the Senate, she’ll already be on the court. I’m very, very concerned about her future opinions.

      Reply

      1. I love what Whitehouse (the senator) said last week about there not being two sets of rules, and if the republicans keep pushing this, then their credibility will die when they get to their pearl clutching and protest when dems try to do the same thing later down the road.

        I think 9 justices is just right. It’s just enough written opinions and legalese to publish for the lower courts to take into consideration. More than 9 means it’s gonna take too freaking long. Maybe we could go down to 7. But I’d stick to 9 if they did 20 year limits on appointments.

        Reply

        1. 7 or 9. Has to be an odd number, obviously. “Packing” any more is a dangerous precedent, as shown in the cartoon. But definitely term limits are in order. Lifetime appointments were fine back when the average life span was 40 years. But times have definitely changed.

        2. and so has the technology. Would be nice to have someone in the court that didn’t need every new thing analogized to death. I don’t think ALL tech and bits of the tech revolution are good, but some basic familiarity of what things are so you can make an educated ruling are needed. Having a judge who will only be there 20 years ensures there’s less of a social bubble. Eventually you’ll have younger attorneys arguing cases that will have never used dial-up internet, or a landline phone, or a payphone, or a typewriter, or checkbook, or been to controversial lectures at school because all they did was online learning. How the hell are these lawyers supposed to communicate with justices who may assume all this stuff is still used by everyone? How do you analogize something like that when neither side has a middle ground of basic info? Some gaffs of previous years regarding tech companies and the court have already shown some difficulties… they’re only gonna get worse as things change more rapidly.

        3. Yep. And the same applies to all the antiques in Congress. Who can forget the senator who said “the internet is a series of tubes”? Yet these are the very people making the laws to regulate all the new technology.

        4. but that’s what the lobbyists are for: to pat them on the head, give them money, and tell them not to worry about it, just do x, y, and z. No wonder so many folks voted for Dump– they don’t like to think and find things out for themselves, so they pay a guy to (try to) yell things into submission.